> it might be nice to have separate subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily see what state the proposals are in.
I think that's useful. I wonder if it would make sense though to bucket some of these. Maybe we could make do with just a "current" and "old" directory. I like hiding RFCs that are no longer relevant, but don't care much if they are dropped or superseded. Likewise, I don't care much if they are active, under discussion or under development. Thoughts? > One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively under development? It might be nice to clearly distinguish between proposals that are under development vs. finished. Just to make sure I got this 100% right, you mean the work related as part of the proposal would be under development, correct? On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:30 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 > > Looks good to me! > > A couple of minor thoughts - it might be nice to have separate > subdirectories on the wiki for the different proposal states, to easily see > what state the proposals are in. > > One thing that isn't visible in these states - is the proposal actively > under development? It might be nice to clearly distinguish between > proposals that are under development vs. finished. > > -Dan > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:31 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Having the RFC discussion in a pull request was by far the most >> controversial aspect of this proposal. Because we were unable to come to >> an >> agreement, we should stick with the smallest change to what we are doing >> already. Therefore I moved the proposal to the wiki where all existing >> proposals are. >> >> Please take a look there >> < >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Lightweight+RFC+Process >> > >> and let's discuss here if any changes should be made. Otherwise I intent >> to >> move the proposal to `active` tomorrow. >> >> Thank you everyone! >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:26 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > I am proposing a new process that is aimed to address some of the issues >> > we've recently encountered in making collective decisions. The process >> I am >> > proposing would use pull request to discuss proposals. >> > >> > To demonstrate the process, I submitted my proposal as a pull request >> > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>. While this email has the >> > [DISCUSS] label, I ask to *please keep all discussions on the PR >> > <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3706>* to test drive the proposed >> > process. There already is a healthy discussion on the PR, including if >> the >> > process in general should take place via a PR. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> >
